From the Dispatch

Washington State Proposal Would Make Taxpayer Money Work for the 99%

Ben Secord — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:36:00 +0000

A proposal to create a state-owned bank is gaining momentum in Washington State, where a bill modeled after the successful Bank of North Dakota was introduced in January with 44 co-sponsors in the House. In a speech at the outset of the legislative session, Speaker of the House Frank Chopp called it one of the caucuses’ key priorities this year.

The proposal would allow Washington to begin to administer certain loans and services that are currently operated by large multinational banks like Bank of America and Chase. Long-term, it could help increase lending to small businesses and farms, while also generating significant revenue for the state.

The Bank of North Dakota, an almost 100 year-old institution which partners with local banks to expand their lending capacity, is credited with helping the state support the most diverse banking sector in the country. North Dakota has four times more local banks than the U.S. average and local banks account for 60% of all deposits in the state, compared to only 16% nationally.

This is important because local community banks are much more likely to lend to small businesses and farms – the kind of employers that have been hit hardest during the Great Recession and its aftermath. In fact, smaller community banks lend three times as much to small businesses than four mega banks (Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase and Citi Bank), despite having only a quarter of the total assets of their much larger counterparts. The reluctance on the part of big banks to make loans available to small businesses has been a significant barrier to job creation, as many business owners say that the lack of access to credit has prohibited them from growing.

The Bank of North Dakota has also generated more than $300 million in revenue over the past decade, a significant boost to the general fund for a small state. By comparison, the equivalent sum in Illinois would have been $6 billion over the same period of time.

Washington has made more than $10 billion in cuts to core education and health systems since the onset of the recession, and this proposal could provide the state with more long-term stability and flexibility, especially during tough times. Instead of allowing the interest gained from the state’s reserves to funnel back to Wall Street, the money could potentially go toward funding infrastructure improvements, education, or replenishing the state’s Rainy Day Fund. It’s an idea that is resonating with lawmakers and the public alike who are angry over the role big banks have played in sinking the country into the Great Recession and saddling the state with four consecutive years of severe budget troubles.

The bill introduced in the state House to create the Washington Investment Trust, sponsored by Rep. Bob Hasegawa, has a companion bill in the Senate that has already garnered 11 sponsors. A number of other states are considering similar legislation, including Oregon, Maine, Michigan, Illinois, Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, Montana and California.

Full Resources from this Article

Washington State Proposal Would Make Taxpayer Money Work for the 99%

Yes! Magazine — How State Banks Bring the Money Home
Center for State Innovation — State Banks Initiative

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/020212.bank.jpg

More States Look to Revenue Increases as Budget Woes Persist

Ben Secord — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 05:06:56 +0000

Facing another round of deep cuts to health care and education as a result of ongoing revenue shortages caused by the slow economic recovery, and on the heels of a new national survey reporting that most state budgets have now seen spending fall below pre-recession levels, some states are signaling that they will be pursuing more balanced approaches to their budget troubles in 2012 than they have in previous years.

In Washington, Governor Christine Gregoire is advocating for a temporary sales tax increase to help protect from further cuts. The legislature, which convened for an emergency special session this week to address the budget amid protests from residents opposed to further cuts, would likely send a package to voters for an up or down vote this spring. A recent poll found that roughly two-thirds of voters supported the idea of the temporary sales tax bump if it meant preserving education funding and preventing other service cuts. Even major business interests are acknowledging the need for increased state revenue in this special session. “At the end of the day, I think we recognize that things like higher education, public health and public safety are on the line,” Don Brunell, president of the Association of Washington Business, told The Olympian newspaper in a recent interview.

More and more states are also indicating that revenue will be front and center in 2012 legislative sessions as they seek to rebuild prosperity after suffering from historic revenue shortfalls. In Maryland, Governor Martin O’Malley is set to embark on an ambitious legislative agenda that includes raising new revenue to close the state’s most recent deficit. One proposal he is asking the legislature to consider is an increase to the gas tax, which would phase in over three years and would go toward paying for stalled transportation and infrastructure projects to boost local job creation. California Governor Jerry Brown is also preparing to announce a tax plan in the near future that would be put to voters in a ballot initiative in November 2012. According to the Los Angeles Times, Gov. Brown’s proposal would aim to close a likely $3.7 billion shortfall by raising tax rates on upper-income earners and increasing the state sales tax by half a cent, and would sunset in 2016.

In other states, governors and lawmakers are reconsidering anti-tax pledges amidst severe budget pressures. In New York, where the growing Occupy movement has intensified debate over an expiring Millionaires’ Tax, some have asserted that Governor Andrew Cuomo might not be able to count on Republicans in the Senate to allow the tax to expire. With significant cuts looming, there is speculation that some lawmakers, particularly in districts with fewer wealthy individuals, would prefer to extend the tax rather than find savings elsewhere. Perhaps in response to this pressure, reports have indicated that Gov. Cuomo — who had been dubbed “Governor 1%” by some in the Occupy movement — is now considering proposed changes to the state tax code for next year that may include asking the wealthy to pay their fair share.

Some states have already been pursuing a more balanced approach in dealing with their budget troubles. Connecticut used new revenue to cover roughly two-thirds of the budget hole last year, including a restructuring of the state income tax. Connecticut lawmakers also created a state version of the earned-income tax credit to help working families weather the difficult economic conditions. As a new report released by the National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers released this week notes that state budgets will continue to face significant shortfalls in 2012, proposals to increase revenue look as if they will be on the table in many states next year.

Full Resources from this Article

More States Look to Revenue Increases as Budget Woes Persist

National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers — Fiscal Survey of States Fall 2011
Bloomberg News — Cuomo Considers Changing N.Y. Tax Code as Economy Struggles
Connecticut Mirror — Against the tide, Connecticut helps the working poor
Los Angeles Times — Jerry Brown to pitch tax plan to voters

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/cm3091511.jpg

Big Corporations Dodge Federal Income Taxes

Ben Secord — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:59:21 +0000

As the Occupy Wall Street movement continues to raise awareness about growing economic inequality and unchecked corporate influence over our political system, a new report released last week by the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that almost 80 of the country’s most profitable companies paid no federal income tax in at least one of the last three years.

The report, which surveyed 280 Fortune 500 companies, shows that many corporations received billions in subsidies while also seeing their tax rate go down. From 2008-2010, the companies surveyed received more than $220 billion in tax subsidies, while the average effective rate paid by these companies dropped to only 18.5 percent (the corporate tax rate is 35 percent). Shockingly, 30 of the companies actually had a negative tax rate over the last three years. One of those companies, General Electric, was the target of criticism earlier this year when a report found that the company had paid no income tax in 2010, even though its U.S. profits exceeded $5 billion.

The report shines a light on a number of other egregious examples of a tax code riddled with unnecessary loopholes and misplaced priorities that disproportionately benefit specific companies and industries. Pepco Holdings had a tax rate of negative 57.6 percent over the three year period. Wells Fargo received $18 billion in tax giveaways. Amazon paid a rate of less than 8 percent on profits of nearly $2 billion. The report also noted that the financial services sector received the largest share of tax subsidies while the top ten defense contractors saw their tax rate cut in half.

The release of the study comes as the Congressional supercommittee charged with reducing the country’s debt continues to stall with the November 23rd deadline approaching. If the committee can’t agree on a package totaling $1.5 trillion then automatic spending cuts will kick in. While deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security have been proposed, efforts to ensure that corporations are paying their fair share have gained very little traction. Robert McIntyre, Executive Director of Citizens for Tax Justice, noted the skewed priorities in giving away billions to companies that already enjoy huge annual profits, “This is wasted money that could have gone to protect Medicare, create jobs and cut the deficit.”

While Congress has yet to tackle the issue in a meaningful way, it’s clear that the public would support action to address corporate tax dodgers. A recent NBC News and Wall Street Journal poll found that three-quarters of respondents agreed with a statement that noted that “America needs to reduce the power of major banks and corporations” and that the “government should not provide financial aid to corporations.”

Full Resources from this Article

Big Corporations Dodge Federal Income Taxes

Citizens for Tax Justice and Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy - Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers, 2008-2010

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/bks111811.jpg

Will "Occupy Wall Street" Occupy the Debate in Statehouses?

Charles Monaco — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 20:33:15 +0000

As the Occupy Wall Street movement spreads across the nation and occupations promise to continue into the winter months, the physical presence of the protesters and their effective communication of the widely shared concerns of “the 99%” about the consolidation of wealth and political power is already having a significant impact on the public debate. Reeling from Occupy-inspired criticism and watching as hundreds of thousands of their customers move their money to smaller banks and credit unions, big banks like Bank of America this week backtracked on their plans to institute yet another proposed fee for debit card use. With gridlock in Congress continuing, the most significant political impact of the Occupy protests may ultimately be felt in statehouses, where the renewed national focus on the consequences of historic levels of inequality are showing signs of revitalizing prospects for a host of progressive economic policies, including one key demand of the protests: asking the 1% to pay their fair share.

In New York state, the “Millionaires’ Tax,” a surtax on incomes over $200,000 a year for individuals or $300,000 a year for families, was enacted in 2009 and is set to expire on December 31st at a cost of $5 billion to a state budget that has already ready seen huge cuts. The expiration of the surtax has gonel egislatively unaddresed so far this year, but as new proposals for jobs measures by the White House and the Senate have included a surtax on millionaires, and as Occupy protests have made economic inequality their overriding message, the issue has been put back on the front burner.

Polls have shown that New Yorkers broadly support not allowing the millionaires’ tax to expire at the end of the year. A recent Siena poll showed that 72% of all New York voters support extending the tax instead of enacting further budget cuts, including 55% of all Republicans. Another recent New York poll by Quinnipiac shows voters backing an extension of the millionaires’ tax by a more than 2-to-1 margin, winning 57% support from Republicans. With this renewed attention, Gov. Cuomo has admitted feeling pressure to change his position in opposition to the tax, and lawmakers and analysts alike credit the Occupy protests with influencing the legislative debate. “We have everybody joining together now to say, ‘Enough is enough,’ and we’re hoping our elected officials are going to start listening to us,” Ron Deutsch, executive director of New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness, told a reporter from the New York Times.

Will the shift in the national political debate have a similar effect in other statehouses? If national polling is any indication, it very well may. Across the nation, the level of support for asking the wealthy to pay their fair share reaches similar levels in polls. One recent national poll showed 68%-27% support for the federal surtax on millionaires to pay for parts of the federal jobs bill. Polling in other individual states reflects this national trend as well — a North Carolina survey this week shows residents backing raising taxes on millionaires by a 2-to-1 margin.

Despite the increasing popularity of progressive revenue-generating proposals to avoid more job-killing cuts, challenges to enacting such measures remain. In Colorado this week, a proposal that would have raised personal and corporate income tax rates slightly across the board in order to fund education went down in the only significant statewide ballot initiative on taxes up for a vote this year. With the public clearly on the side of progressives on this issue and appearing to continue to move in that direction, policymakers and legislators can capitalize on the political space being opened up by “the 99%” by advancing policies that ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share and address the rampant economic inequality, corporate influence on politics, and other concerns that are hitting home with more and more Americans.

Full Resources from this Article

Will "Occupy Wall Street" Occupy the Debate in Statehouses?

Media Matters — Message Matters: Tax Cuts for Millionaires But Not the Middle Class
New York Times — Editorial: Flat Taxes and Angry Voters
Bloomberg News — Poll: Americans Back Taxing Rich

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/cm110411.jpg

Looking to Avoid Further Cuts to Jobs, States Scrutinize Tax Expenditures

Ben Secord — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:25:05 +0000

Most states have hundreds of tax expenditures on their books, ranging from tax credits to reduce poverty to exemptions benefiting homeowners to business subsidies. Some of these expenditures, like a sales tax exemption on groceries, have a broad social benefit and enjoy widespread public support. Yet the benefits of others, which are often created for specific companies or industry sectors while purportedly incentivizing local economic growth or job creation, are less clear. Many states have exemptions and credits that are decades old and in some cases outdated or underperforming, with no laws in place to review them and assess their actual impact in local communities. However, another year of severe revenue shortages and deep budget cuts now has many states scrutinizing the true value of these preferential tax treatments.

In Ohio, there is bipartisan support for examining the effectiveness of the state’s 128 tax exemptions, credits and deductions. These exemptions will total roughly $15 billion in forgone revenue in the current two year budget and lawmakers, advocacy groups and think tanks spanning the political spectrum are calling for the elimination of some of them to raise much needed revenue, as well as for a sunset provision that would mandate that all tax expenditures expire on a certain date unless re-approved through the legislative process. Senate President Tom Niehaus (R) has instructed the Ways and Means Committee to produce a report reviewing all 128 exemptions. Speaking to the urgency of assessing their value, Niehaus said, “If we wait until March of 2013 to have the discussion, we’ll run out of time. Do they make sense? Are they doing what they were intended to do? Do we need to eliminate them? We’re also looking at all of those programs as they relate to job incentives.”

Other states are asking similar questions. Earlier this year, Oregon lawmakers ended a number of tax credits and reduced several others, generating more than $125 million in revenue for the next four years. In New Mexico, Gov. Susana Martinez has instructed agencies to analyze the cost of tax credits to the state and whether they are in fact creating jobs. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes that a number of states are pursuing tax expenditure reporting in an attempt to identify revenue that could be better spent elsewhere. According to their report released in May, Georgia and New Jersey have passed new expenditure reporting requirements and Rhode Island, North Carolina and Vermont have all made significant improvements to existing laws.

As the nation’s focus increasingly narrows on the persistent unemployment rate and the need to avoid further job-killing cuts, lawmakers, advocates and the public are all paying more attention to outdated, underperforming, or downright egregious tax credits and exemptions that are costing states dearly.

Full Resources from this Article

Looking to Avoid Further Cuts to Jobs, States Scrutinize Tax Expenditures

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Promoting State Budget Accountability Through Tax Expenditure Reporting

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/bks092211.jpg

Other States Watch Closely as “Amazon Tax” Compromise Reached in California

Charles Monaco — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:09:07 +0000

States looking to avoid making devastating budget cuts following the Great Recession have turned in recent years to closing tax loopholes, including requiring online retailers with a physical presence in-state to collect state sales taxes. Unsurprisingly, states who have pursued this approach have been fought every step of the way by huge corporations, specifically the online retail giant Amazon. This week, the battle came to a head in California, where lawmakers — who had earlier this year passed a measure requiring large online retailers to collect sales taxes — compromised in the face of a multimillion dollar effort by Amazon to take the issue to the voters in a ballot referendum by agreeing to delay the implementation of the law by one year.

The state-by-state battle over these efforts to raise revenue began in New York in 2008, when the state became the first to require online retailers to collect sales taxes on purchases made by customers in state. The law was quickly challenged in court by Amazon. Still, other states followed suit — including Illinois, North Carolina, and Rhode Island — causing Amazon to threaten to end relationships with affiliates in each of these states in order to continue avoiding sales taxes. Legislators and policymakers in these states and many others have been closely watching this year’s fight in California play out, because of the impact a resolution there might have nationally. After passing the law, the state expected $200 million in additional revenue from online retailers this year, and had included that revenue in this year’s budget. But in reaction to its passage, Amazon launched a controversial and constitutionally questionable effort, collecting 500,000 signatures to put the issue before voters in a ballot initiative in an election year. The company poured $5.25 million into advancing the initiative, in the fear that, as the New York Times put it, “a defeat in California will sway legislators across the country, and that it will lose a critical pricing advantage.”

The temperature was further raised when lawmakers responded by threatening to pass an “urgency” bill last week that would have trumped the ballot measure. State Sen. Loni Hancock explained the high stakes: “We’re not doing this lightly, but it seems like Amazon doesn’t really care about the State of California or the people whose lives are affected by whether or not we have enough money for schools and roads and to keep the libraries and parks open.”

The increasingly acrimonious exchange in California came to a resolution this week when lawmakers agreed to a bill that would delay the enforcement of the requirement that Amazon collect sales taxes by a full year, in return for Amazon abandoning their effort to overturn the law at the ballot box. Amazon also promised that they would press for a national standard for the collection of taxes on Internet commerce, but that barring any such agreement, they would begin paying sales taxes in California in September of 2012. As State Sen. Darrell Steinberg told the San Francisco Gate, “even though we have to find a way to get the $200 million that we're going to have to forgo as a result of this, we're going to have certainty that we're going to be able to collect this tax in the future.”

After the resolution in California, legislators in other states, including Tennessee, are now asking why Amazon won’t agree to similar deals and start collecting sales taxes in their states as well. Many organizations advocating for progressive tax reform — including Progressive States Network and Demos — have recently included the collection of online sales taxes as one policy option for states seeking to raise revenue, avoid cuts, create jobs, and increase economic security for families.

The New York Times described Amazon’s continuing attempts to dodge state sales taxes in an editorial this month as an “an abdication of corporate responsibility.” By not paying their fair share in California for at least one more year, the company, currently valued at $100 billion, will force lawmakers in that state to come up with hundreds of millions to pay for their tax avoidance from somewhere else — potentially from those who can least afford it.

Full Resources from this Article

Other States Watch Closely as “Amazon Tax” Compromise Reached in California

Alliance for Main Street Fairness — Stand with Main Street
Alliance for Main Street — Play by the Same Rules
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities — Amazon’s Arguments Against Collecting Sales Taxes Do Not Withstand Scrutiny
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities — New York’s “Amazon Law”: An Important Tool for Collecting Taxes Owed on Internet Purchases
Clawback blog (Good Jobs First) — You can find everything on Amazon, except sales tax
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy — States Should Not Allow Amazon.com to Bully Them into Forgoing Sales Tax Reform
Mother Jones — Amazon's Scorched-Earth War Against the Rest of Us
University of Tennessee — State and Local Sales Tax Revenue Losses from Electronic Commerce

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/cm3091511.jpg

Following Year of Devastating Cuts, States Turning to Revenue Options

Ben Secord — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:07:46 +0000

During 2011 legislative sessions, most states chose to close severe budget gaps without revenue increases, instead opting for further damaging and deep cuts to critical education, health care, and social service programs. However, now that most sessions have ended, lawmakers, business leaders, and community groups in a number of states appear to be increasingly interested in taking revenue increases to voters as an alternative.

Coloradans will likely be voting this November on a proposal that would temporarily increase taxes to fund education. Supporters of the measure, sponsored by State Senator Rollie Heath, turned in 142,000 petition signatures on Monday, far exceeding the 86,105 needed to qualify for the ballot. If approved, the measure would temporarily increase the income tax from 4.63 percent to 5 percent and the sales tax from 2.9 percent to 3 percent. It’s estimated that the proposal would raise an additional $3 billion over the next five years, which would go toward funding K-12 and higher education.

The proposal comes in response to years of cuts to education spending. According to the Bell Policy Center, the state has cut K-12 by nearly $600 million over the past three years and spending per college student has been cut almost in half over the past decade, when adjusted for inflation. After delivering the petitions, Senator Heath said, "Doing nothing in the face of these horrible budget cuts is just not an option."

In California, the recent dip in the stock market has contributed to lower than expected revenue projections which could eventually automatically trigger massive education cuts. Some groups, including the California Federation of Teachers, are calling for a tax on the wealthy to avoid such cuts. The proposal, which advocates are hoping to qualify for the November 2012 ballot, would levy a one percent tax on the wealthiest one percent of Californians, and could bring in upwards of $2 billion annually. According to a recent poll, nearly 80 percent of likely California voters would support such a measure.

Meanwhile in Nevada, an unlikely coalition of business and labor leaders is forming out of frustration with the legislature’s failure to address problems with the state’s tax structure in the recent legislative session. The emerging group has yet to publicly announce a specific proposal but it will likely seek to protect education from further cuts by raising new revenue.

As other states consider revenue increases to help close budget gaps caused by the Great Recession, they might find lessons from Oregon, which enacted two progressive revenue increases in early 2010. When voters passed Measures 66 and 67, taxing corporations and wealthy individuals, respectively, opponents claimed they would be job-killers. Yet Oregon has been ahead of the national curve in economic recovery, and only four states (Oklahoma, Indiana, Nevada and Michigan) have seen larger drops in their unemployment rate over the past year.

With little prospect for help from the federal government and the impact of three years of deep cuts to popular and critical services taking its toll, recent legislative momentum and numerous polls indicate that voters are willing to consider tax increases if it means preserving education and other critical services they care about.

Full Resources from this Article

Following Year of Devastating Cuts, States Turning to Revenue Options

Progressive States Network - PSN 2011 Tax and Budget Roundup: Middle Class Reels From Extreme Cuts, Damaging Right-Wing Fiscal Priorities
LA Times - California tax revenues plummet in July, raising fear of trigger cuts
Support Our Schools for a Bright Colorado - How Initiative 25 Works
Oregon Live - The New Normal: Once Trailing, Oregon a Leader in Economic Recovery
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - State Budget Cuts in New Fiscal Year Are Unnecessarily Harmful

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/bs081111.jpg

Uncertainty and Austerity: What the Debt Deal Means for the States

Altaf Rahamatulla — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:41:00 +0000

On Tuesday, President Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 to increase the debt ceiling and avoid default, marking the end of a manufactured crisis that saw the right wing engage in hostage-taking antics that threatened to push the nation toward economic catastrophe. The deal makes it even more apparent that there exists a pernicious dichotomy between Washington's priorities and the actual economic experience of average American families. While the wealth gap continues to widen, unemployment remains abysmally high, and states reel from historic revenue shortfalls, federal discourse over the past month instead centered on the depth and extent of programmatic cuts. And while the exact details are uncertain, it is clear that states stand to lose substantial federal funding for vital programs — such as education, public safety, and elderly care — in the coming years.

Political dysfunction only exacerbates the faltering recovery. Last week, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis released data indicating severely anemic economic growth. GDP increased 1.3 percent in the second quarter of this year, and only 0.4 percent in the first. Additionally, consumer spending fell, declining for the first time in almost two years. Unemployment figures released in June marked the eighth consecutive month of job loss in the state and local government sector, which is one of the primary contributors to the nation's sputtering economic rebound. Over 14 million Americans were out of work as of June, while labor force participation "remained at its lowest level since April 1984." As several commentators have emphasized, the true immediate crisis is not the debt, but persistent joblessness.

Incredibly, the debt-ceiling deal does not address any of these realities. In fact, the bill contains no initiatives to spur demand, promote growth, or further recovery efforts, such as an extension of unemployment insurance, payroll tax cuts, expanded infrastructure investment, or much-needed aid to the states. What's more, the deal does not generate any revenue, which most analysts agree is wholly necessary to confront long-term deficit reduction. Conservatives maintained a hard line throughout negotiations that they would not support an increase in the debt-ceiling if any revenue was included in the package. The Economist found that, "the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take,” calling their position “economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical."

Instead, the deal hinges upon almost $1 trillion spending cap over the next decade, which is slated to decrease non-security domestic spending to under 2 percent of GDP in 2021, the lowest level since the Eisenhower Administration. These reductions will come from defense and discretionary spending. In the short-term, Social Security, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs are protected, but are likely to be impacted years down the line. Federal lawmakers also spared Pell Grants, but at the expense of a special loan program for graduate students. The bill also designates a bipartisan Congressional "supercommittee" to identify up to $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by late fall. If they agree on a package, the House and Senate would then vote on the proposals. However, if they do not reach an agreement, $1.2 trillion in additional cuts to defense and discretionary spending will be automatically triggered to begin in 2013. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the specific areas of reductions, the actual process of programmatic reductions, and the feasibility of the committee, which led the New York Times to assess the Budget Control Act to be "as contrived as the artificial crisis that spawned it,” describing the bill as “a tired opera production, full of clumsy staging and failed gimmicks left over from previous decades."

Nick Johnson of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes that the deal “inevitably will lead to large federal cuts in programs for state and local governments,” and that these cuts will begin “in the middle of the worst year for state budgets." On average, a full one-third of all state dollars flow from the federal government. This funding is directed to a wide range of areas, including Medicaid, education, food stamps, school readiness programs, and worker training initiatives. States, already devastated by the the largest budget shortfalls on record and the end of federal recovery efforts, have already resorted to making some of the deepest cuts to education and health care in years — so much so, that many states' current spending falls below pre-recession levels. Even as state and local governments have slashed workforces dramatically — almost 10,000 to 20,000 positions per month since August 2008 — the debt deal will likely lead to future job loss as well. Contraction in federal spending will only worsen weak state fiscal circumstances, prolong economic pain, slow recovery even further, potentially cause a drastic cost-shift to the states, and reduce support for important public services.

It seems that federal lawmakers are all too willing to compromise middle class economic security and support for vulnerable populations in the name of "bipartisan compromise." It is also clear that conservative intransigence has corroded the political process. The right placed the country's economic standing at risk in an effort to appease corporations and the affluent as well to weaken the administration politically moving into the 2012 elections. The public has noticed that the economy, working families, and states received the short-end of this deal and are rightly disgusted by this display of extreme partisanship. Policy should not be subject to the whims of ideological zealots, political recklessness, and warped discourse. Economic security, fiscal stability, and job creation should not be partisan issues — the country's recovery depends on rebuilding prosperity though strengthening demand, supporting small businesses and working families, augmenting investment in infrastructure, ensuring all taxpayers are contributing their fair share, and promoting robust growth.

Full Resources from this Article

Uncertainty and Austerity: What the Debt Deal Means for the States

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – Deal Avoids Default, but Sets Nation on Disturbing Policy Course
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Off the Charts Blog – What the debt limit deal means for states
DEMOS - Debt Ceiling Deal Will Mean 1.8 Million Fewer Jobs in 2012
Economic Policy Institute – What's missing from the debt ceiling debate?
Progressive States Network – PSN 2011 Tax and Budget Roundup
ProPublica – Our Sputtering Economy, by the Numbers
Stateline.org – For states, debt deal is short on details
US Conference of Mayors – Pass Debt Ceiling Legislation, Then Focus on Investments for Job Creation
Washington Post – With debt deal, states brace for cuts in federal funding
White House – Fact Sheet: Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/ar080411.jpg

PSN 2011 Tax and Budget Roundup: Middle Class Reels From Extreme Cuts, Damaging Right-Wing Fiscal Priorities

Altaf Rahamatulla — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:35:08 +0000

(Note: With legislative sessions largely adjourned in statehouses across the nation, this week’s Dispatch is the second in a series of issue-specific session roundups from Progressive States Network highlighting trends in different critical policy areas across the fifty states.)

Lawmakers confronted massive budget shortfalls, persistently high unemployment, and myriad fiscal and economic obstacles during 2011 state legislative sessions. With states still reeling from effects of the economic downturn and with federal investment in state economies receding, lawmakers considered drastic measures to confront budgetary constraints. Though many state revenue outlooks improved slightly in the past few months, partly as a result of tax increases passed in recent years, it was little comfort as states faced collective shortfalls of $103 billion in fiscal year 2012.

Source:Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The shift in the state electoral balance last November also changed legislative dynamics, as conservatives won many majorities and gained new control of over 20 legislative chambers. The right's voracious appetite for cuts that harmed the economic security of the middle class played out dramatically throughout sessions this year, as they pushed extreme fiscal austerity measures including unfeasible, regressive, and economically-damaging budget cuts, while also pushing for enormous tax breaks for the rich and large businesses. Hyperpartisanship further compromised fiscal negotiations in statehouses across the country, with several states failing to produce a budget on time and Minnesota shutting down after the state officials failed to agree to a budget deal.

The Pew Center on the States notes that although revenue generation has been a significant feature of states' response to revenue shortfalls in previous years, cuts to vital services and reductions in public workforces unfortunately comprised a disproportionate amount of state-level fiscal action in 2011. As Susan K. Urahn, Managing Director at Pew, summarized the session, "two years ago there was a historic increase in taxes. This year it was, what can we cut and how deeply do we cut — a pretty significant shift."

As sessions progressed, it became painfully apparent that conservative lawmakers were not interested in job creation, economic growth, or support for those who have been hit hardest by the recession, but rather ideologically-driven platforms that sacrificed fiscal sustainability and the economic security of millions of families for the benefit of the affluent and huge corporations. A conservative lawmaker from Florida confirmed as much when reflecting on his state’s 2011 session as “certainly” not resulting in “the 'jobs, jobs, jobs' that the public expected,” adding that “if we added everything up, we're probably in the negative this session for jobs, not the positive."

The right's fiscally and socially irresponsible approaches this session were as alarming as they were hypocritical, exacerbating economic pain and as North Carolina Gov. Bev Purdue recently commented, causing "generational damage."

Source: National Council of State Legislatures

In a recent piece, New York Times columnist Charles Blow aptly described the ways in which the right wing has been able to frame their damaging fiscal and social policy priorities to the public:

"This is part of the modern doctrine of a compassion-free conservatism that’s using the fog of the fiscal crisis to push a program of perverse wealth inequality as sound economic policy: The only way to jump-start the economy is to slash taxes on the wealthy and on companies; the only way to compensate for the deficits that those tax cuts exacerbate is to slash benefits to the poor and vulnerable. It would be comical if it weren’t so callous. Not only is this faulty logic, it’s a false choice."

Recent developments at the state and federal level illustrate a persistent dichotomy between economic forecasts fiscal policy and the daily experience of middle and low-income families. As national reports indicate positive signs of an economic rebound and national leaders have largely pivoted to budget cuts and deficit reduction rather than pursuing comprehensive job creation strategies, unemployment still remains abysmally high. Unemployment figures released in June marked the eighth consecutive month of job loss in the state and local government sector, with the national rate rising above 9 percent. Over 14 million Americans are now out of work and, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) points out, “in May 2011, the labor force participation rate remained at its lowest level since April 1984 and the percentage of the population with a job remained near lows that were last seen in the 1980s.” Over 45 percent of the unemployed have been looking for employment for 27 weeks or more.

At the same time, corporations have enjoyed historic profits and absurdly low tax burdens. At the end of March, the New York Times published an explosive story finding that General Electric (G.E.), the nation's largest company which reported $5.1 billion in profit last year from operations in the U.S., would not pay a dime in federal taxes. Similarly, ExxonMobil posted profits exceeding $45 billion last year, even as they paid no federal income tax in 2009 as a result of aggressive tax avoidance strategies. In a 2008 report, the Government Accountability Office discovered that two out of every three U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005. Just as disturbing, Northeastern University economists found that from June 2009 to May 2011, corporate profits represented 88 percent of the growth in real national income and average earnings for all employees actually declined by 1.1 percent over the same time period. As income inequality, joblessness, and the economic insecurity of the middle class has exacerbated, corporations have been contributing less and less of their fair share in taxes.

Massive Cuts to Education and Health Care Contribute to Job Losses

Utilizing precarious economic and fiscal circumstances, newly-empowered conservatives pursued a damaging agenda in state legislatures this year. The brunt of the cuts fell on the backs of nurses, teachers, firefighters, and vulnerable populations. Conservatives proved they were willing to compromise economic recovery, job growth, public safety, and the needs of children and the elderly all with an eye toward enriching the already affluent and reducing government support for an ailing economy.

Education funding was one of the biggest targets of right-wing budget cuts this session. Stateline reported that "in many states, this was the second or third or fourth year of budget cuts since the recession began” and that “governors have proposed a net $2.5 billion in cuts to K-12 education and $5 billion in cuts to higher education" for fiscal year 2012.

Almost three-quarters of states that enacted budgets have opted for enormous reductions to education, health care, services for the elderly, and the state workforce generally. In a recent analysis, CBPP analyzed some of the most egregious actions states have enacted this past year:

Arizona eliminated Medicaid coverage for 130,000 adults without children and canceled a child care assistance program for working families.
Florida's budget made significant reductions to the state workforce, forcing 1,300 public employees. The state is also reducing Medicaid payments to hospitals and cutting 15,000 children from a academic preparation program that assists low-income families.
Michigan made huge cuts to K-12 education, while additionally reducing support for working families in a time of hardship. The state approved a 70 percent reduction the state's Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program and limiting assistance for people with disabilities.
Wisconsinis reducing the state’s EITC for over 150,000 families.

Further, state workforces are shrinking dramatically. Since August 2008, over half a million state employees have lost employment — compromising the economic security of working families and overall recovery.

Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

States Pursuing Reductions to Important Public Structures, while Increasing Support for Corporations and the Rich

Even as some states cut programs that benefit the middle class and working families this year, many of the same states increased support for corporations and the rich.

In Florida, legislators approved an extreme measure that not only undermines the economic security of Floridians, but also threatens recovery in a state already deeply affected by the lasting impacts of the recession with the third highest unemployment rate in the nation. State lawmakers approved legislation that would make Florida the only state in the country that ties unemployment insurance (UI) to the state's unemployment rate. The bill will also make the process for qualifying for UI even more stringent and reduce the tax rate that companies are required pay to cover the benefits by 10 percent. While undermining jobless workers and families, the bill would also cut business taxes in a state that already inefficiently directs hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to corporate tax breaks and subsidies. Other states, such as Arizona, Georgia, Idaho Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, followed a similar path by cutting taxes on the rich and corporations. In one of the most extreme moves, Missouri plans to phase out its corporate franchise tax over the next five years.

To compound the largely regressive policies enacted this session, lawmakers have looked further toward privatization.Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed legislation earlier this year to replace the state's Commerce Department with a public-private entity. Several conservative officials have floated this flawed concept as a means to increase efficiency, but the effort to privatize economic development functions in the state comes at a great cost to taxpayers. As Good Jobs First comprehensively details, “rather than making economic development activities more effective, privatization is often little more than a power grab by governors and politically connected business interests” — a power grab that can lead to misuse of taxpayer dollars, corruption, conflicts of interest, and lost accountability. For instance, Michigan, a state that has a semi-privatized commerce department, distributed $9.1 million in tax credits to a convicted embezzler last year. Generally, privatization comes at the expense of long-term community investments, sustainable budget policy, taxpayer protections, transparency, and public accountability. Privatization efforts often reflect a desire for a short-term infusion of capital and result in policy driven by profit rather than public interest, potential conflicts of interests, and higher future costs and fees for state residents.

Economic Research Indicates the Detrimental Impact of Cuts

Contrary to flawed right-wing fiscal ideology, research has shown that cuts to major programs are socially and fiscally detrimental, especially in a time of economic pressures. A recent Center for American Progress (CAP) study indicates that states that have made the largest reductions to spending have also lost the most jobs: "states that cut spending saw on average: 1 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate, 2.1 percent loss of private employment; 2.9 percent real economic contraction relative to the national economic trend."

Source: Center for American Progress

Cuts are extremely damaging to the economy. Further reductions will diminish state workforces, decrease spending on crucial programs, curb economic growth, and exacerbate the effects of the downturn. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) details the danger of state budget cuts as they impact employment, economic activity, and investment in both the public and private sector:

"For each dollar of budget cuts, over half of the jobs and economic activity lost will be in the private sector, for a number of reasons: (1) a quarter of state spending is transfer payments, which predominantly serve to increase beneficiaries’ purchasing power for private spending; (2) state spending is often in the form of grants or contracts to private or nonprofit entities who are then responsible for the provision of public services, (3) nearly a third of direct state spending (i.e., public provision of goods and services) supports jobs in private supplier industries; and (4) workers who lose their jobs have less money to spend than they otherwise would, and their spending supports jobs across the economy."

They conclude that every $1 in state or local budget cut results in $1.41 in lost economic activity and 41 cents less re-spending in the private sector.

Targeted Revenue Generation to Invest in Public Structures and Respond to Shortfalls

Despite the overwhelming cuts that many legislatures enacted, there were a number of states that pursued some form of revenue generation to alleviate fiscal pressures. Further, many states saw significant victories that advanced the economic security of middle class.

At the beginning of the year, Illinois lawmakers approved legislation to raise the state corporate and personal income tax. In explaining the need for the effort, Gov. Pat Quinn explained that the state's "fiscal house was burning." Faced with a revenue shortfall of $15 billion, legislators garnered the political will to enact sensible means to generate sorely-needed revenue. Though the state faces a number of structural budget issues, compared to the short-term fiscal gimmicks used in the past, this action was undoubtedly a step in the right direction. The plan will raise $6.5 billion over the next year and primarily consists of temporarily increasing the state's flat personal income tax, from 3 to 5 percent, and corporate tax, from 4.8 to 7 percent. This was the first time in 22 years that the state raised income taxes.

Connecticut followed suit months later, when the state legislature took a solid step towards fiscal stability by approving a $40.1 billion budget that included progressive measures. The budget sought cost savings in several areas, but also generated billions in new revenue for the state by increasing the marginal income tax rate for joint filers earning $100,000 and over, lowering the threshold for the estate tax from estates valued at $3.5 million to $2 million, raising the hotel, alcohol, and tobacco taxes, and increasing the sales tax. Notably, the budget also creates a refundable state earned income tax credit for working families, funds pension obligations, and provides much-needed funding for critical services and programs. As the New York Times explained in an analysis at the time, "as officials in nearby states have become conspicuous converts to the current anti-tax, anti-government fever, [Governor] Malloy and Connecticut Democrats are striking a more anomalous course, betting that residents will accept the short-term pain of tax increases if they see a long-term gain of stable government services and fiscal policy."

Other states looked toward revenue generation as well:

Hawaii repealed a state income tax deduction for high-income tax payers;
Maryland increased the sales on alcohol to 9 percent;
Nevada temporarily extended business and state sales taxes that were set to expire this year; and
Vermont increased cigarette taxes by a 38-cents, enacted a new tax on medical and dental insurance claims, and raised a provider tax on home health agencies and nursing homes.

CBPP has documented that raising revenue is typical during recessions, noting that "in the recession of the early 1990s, some 44 states raised taxes; in the early 2000s, some 30 states did so." In 2008 and 2009, over 30 states increased taxes as a response to fiscal pressures. In 2009 alone, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware,Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin instituted either a permanent or temporary reform of personal income taxes. Many of these states have increased revenue by over 5 percent. Last year, Hawaii and Oregon took progressive steps to close shortfalls. Oregon voters approved legislative action to increase personal and corporate income taxes, while Hawaii looked to cap itemize deductions at $50,000 for joint filers with income over $300,000, or at $25,000 for individuals earning over $150,000.

Other states have looked strategically to reforming corporate income taxes. In recent years,Wisconsin enacted combined reporting, which requires multi-state corporations to report profits from all entities, including subsidiaries, for tax purposes, and is a key policy to restrict tax avoidance and nullify certain tax shelters. Currently, over 20 states have implemented the policy.

During an economic downturn, progressive revenue generation is far preferable to deep cuts, as it allows states to provide funding for essential programs, pump money into the economy, protect working families, and preserve jobs. As Progressive States Network has highlighted in the past, research consistently shows that there is no link between tax increases and job loss or migration of wealthy residents. Moreover, states with higher personal income tax rates experienced significant job growth in the past decade, have more innovative new economy industries as a result of crucial investments in long-term growth industries, and sustain higher income growth.

Many states also looked to close inefficient corporate tax loopholes and wasteful tax credits this session. For instance, Washington lawmakers took a sensible step in deciding not to extend an inefficient film tax credit program that would have cost the state $7 million in the coming biennium.

As House Majority Leader Pat Sullivan explained, “having just passed a budget… that actually didn’t fund some of the programs that some of our members really wanted to see funded, it was difficult then, in turn, to turn around to adopt a tax break.” Film tax credit programs are notorious examples of wasteful and ineffective spending. In 2002, only three states offered incentives to the film industry; today, a majority do so. Nonetheless, in recent years, lawmakers and officials in several states, including Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Wisconsin, have looked to decrease or eliminate this type of tax credit due to issues of excessive cost, scandal, corruption, and lack of economic impact.

Progressives Championing Accountability to Protect Taxpayers

Progressive lawmakers also championed efforts in 2011 to augment accountability and transparency of state spending. In May, Oregon state lawmakers unanimously approved a bill to provide increased transparency of state spending on economic development subsidies. The legislation, HB2825, requires the Department of Administrative Services to publish detailed information regarding the amount, purpose, and intent of tax incentives directed to corporate entities on the state's transparency website. State Rep. Phil Barnhart (D), who sponsored the bill along with State Rep. Kim Thatcher (R), commented that “spending on tax breaks should be treated the same as spending on programs,” and that “by putting this information online, as is currently the case with other areas of the budget, we move one step closer to that goal."

The bill garnered bipartisan legislative support, approval from Oregon businesses, and brought together advocacy organizations from across the ideological spectrum. The primary champion of the legislation was the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group (OSPIRG), which was instrumental in moving the bill and framing transparency as a means to protect taxpayers and provide safeguards against waste. Jon Bartholomew, a Policy Advocate at OSPIRG, notes that the bill “will prevent fraud and waste of our public resources and ensure that Oregonians get the greatest return on our investment possible."

The victory in Oregon mirrored legislative movement across the states to increase transparency of state budgets.

In the 2011 session alone, lawmakers in several states, including Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia, have spearheaded initiatives to augment accountability in the state budget process, evidence that policymakers are placing a greater level of scrutiny on corporate tax breaks, subsidies, and contracts as states continue to experience the lasting impacts of the economic downturn.

Earlier in the year, the energy company Evergreen Solar declared that it would close its Massachusetts-based operation and move to China — after the state doled out $58 million in tax incentives to the company. Lawmakers failed to include accountability requirements as terms of the subsidy and, as a result, 800 people found themselves out of work and the state will not be able to recoup the full amount of the subsidy. A similar instance occurred this year with Fidelity Investments, prompting legislators to act. Massachusetts State Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D) introduced S153 to strengthen the state's economic development subsidy accountability mechanisms.

The revenue pressures states confront merit a more detailed review of state spending. States direct hundreds of millions of dollars annually to corporations in the name of economic development, usually with little to no transparency, economic benefit, or job creation. As Good Jobs First documents in a recent publication, eliminating or reducing ineffective corporate subsidy programs can make a significant contribution towards addressing state revenue shortfalls.

Lawmakers must make sure that entities receiving public dollars are creating jobs, saving their state money, and best serving the public good. Dealing with continued shortfalls, states cannot afford to hand out enormous subsidies or award lavish contracts with nothing to show in return. Without needed accountability reforms, states are placing taxpayers, budget sustainability, and economic recovery at risk.

Conclusion: Rebuilding Prosperity

The results of 2011 legislative sessions demonstrate that the dire fiscal and economic circumstances states continue to confront require policy responses from lawmakers that will ensure states can continue provide essential services, make critical investments in long-term growth areas and public structures, support working and middle-class families who have been disproportionately hit by the impact of the downturn, and ensure that all taxpayers are contributing their fair share.

For an extensive review of progressive tax and budget policies, voters' attitudes, and messaging, please see PSN's Blueprint for Economic Security: Rebuilding Prosperity and Messaging for Government Action in an Economic Downturn.

Full Resources from this Article

PSN 2011 Tax and Budget Roundup: Middle Class Reels From Extreme Cuts, Damaging Right-Wing Fiscal Priorities

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities — States Continue to Feel Recession's Impact
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities — New Fiscal Year Brings Further Budget Cuts to Most States, Slowing Economic Recovery
Economic Policy Institute, Dire States
Economic Policy Institute — Ten facts about the recovery
Progressive States Network — Austerity vs. Progress
Stateline.org — States balance budget with cuts, not taxes
Wall Street Journal — Higher Taxes Yield to Budget Cuts

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/ar072111.jpg

More Corporate Welfare: Another Tax Holiday for Overseas Profits Proposed

Michael Berman — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:00:07 +0000

As 2011 legislative sessions draw to a close, many states continue to wrestle with budget shortfalls. Some adopted responsible measures this session to rebuild prosperity through a balanced approach that included revenue generation, while others went down a destructive path relying exclusively on job-killing cuts. The same revenue debate that played out in the states is now coming to a boil in Washington D.C. as policymakers consider ways to raise revenue to address the federal deficit — including one misguided proposal that would result in more corporate welfare and provide little benefit for the nation’s economic security.

Some members of Congress have recently signaled their support for a proposal, strongly backed by large corporations and lobbyists, to create a temporary tax break on profits that corporations earn overseas. This so called “repatriation tax holiday” would allow corporations with overseas profits to avoid paying the normal corporate tax rate of 35% and instead pay a measly 5%. The rationale behind this plan is that billions of dollars would immediately be brought into the U.S. economy, serving as a fiscal stimulus and creating thousands of domestic jobs. However, this was not the case in 2004, when Congress enacted a similar tax holiday, and it would not be the case now. Instead, a repatriation tax holiday would provide yet another financial windfall for corporations that exploit the loopholes in our tax code and encourage even more American jobs and assets to be shipped overseas.

Corporations do not need another massive tax break to line the pockets of their executives and shareholders. While the middle class and hardworking families have had to contribute an ever growing portion of their incomes to taxes over the last 50 years, the burden on corporations has diminished precipitously. In 1955, corporate taxes provided over 27% of federal revenues; now they account for less than 9%. Over that same span, individual taxation has grown to the point where it now accounts for over 81% of federal revenue. And the available data shows that, contrary to popular misconception, corporations in the United States are not overtaxed compared to their counterparts in other industrialized countries, and in fact pay much less in taxes. Citizens for Tax Justice recently reported that, thanks to their exploitation of the loopholes in our porous tax code, many of the largest American corporations actually pay a negative effective tax rate.

Despite this, large corporations are now lobbying for another repatriation tax holiday. Experience has shown this to be a bad idea in the past and simple foresight reveals that the consequences will be even worse if this mistake is repeated now.

Proponents of the tax holiday claim that it will result in an economic stimulus and job creation. However, Professor Kristin J. Forbes from MIT’s Sloan School of Management notes that, following the 2004 tax holiday, “for every dollar that was brought back, there were zero cents used for additional capital expenditures, research and development, or hiring and employees wages.” In fact, corporations that repatriated billions of dollars in overseas profits actually cut thousands of jobs in the immediate aftermath — Pfizer brought back $37 billion and eliminated 10,000 American jobs; Ford repatriated $850 million and laid off 30,000 workers; Merck brought back $15.9 billion and laid off 7,000 employees, and Honeywell International, which repatriated $2.7 billion, eliminated 2,000 jobs. Despite mandates in the legislation creating the tax holiday that required the benefits to be used to promote economic development, corporations instead used the money mostly to buy back their own stock and pay dividends to their shareholders. This amounts to yet another example of corporate welfare, and there is no reason to believe that the results would be any different this time.

In addition, the costs of the policy would likely be severe. Although a tax holiday would result in a short term boost in federal tax revenue, that boost would come at the expense of long term revenue and add to the federal deficit. Projections from the 2004 tax holiday show that it will end up costing the treasury$3.3 billion in lost revenueover ten years.

The costs of a new tax holiday would likely be even greater. The 2004 holiday was implemented under the condition that it would be a one-time discount, never to be repeated. However, corporations clearly expected that it would be repeated, as they immediately began to shift jobs and resources overseas. Following the tax holiday, U.S. corporations increased their permanent foreign investment of earnings by an average of $1.32 billion annually, compared to an average annual increase of $342 million prior to 2004. As such, projections indicate that another tax holiday could cost the treasury $79 billion in lost revenue, 24 times the cost of the 2004 holiday.

To prove these corporations right would be an enormous mistake. It would produce no tangible benefits for our sputtering economy and would reward corporations for moving assets overseas. In addition, it would contribute heavily to our federal deficit at a time when many crucial programs are already being cut. Policymakers should think twice before supporting another tax holiday and realize that the costs would far outweigh any perceived benefits.

Full Resources from this Article

More Corporate Welfare: Another Tax Holiday for Overseas Profits Proposed

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities — Tax Holiday for Overseas Corporate Profits Would Increase Deficits, Fail to Boost the Economy, and Ultimately Shift More Investment and Jobs Overseas
Demos — Corporate Taxes: Key Facts
Citizens for Tax Justice — Analysis: 12 Corporations Pay Effective Tax Rate of Negative 1.5% on $171 Billion in Profits; Reap $62.4 Billion in Tax Subsidies
New York Times — Companies Push for Tax Break on Foreign Cash

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/mb070911.jpg